Toms River council rejects stateaffordable-housing calculation, adopts lower local totals

The Toms River Township Council on Jan. 13 voted to reject the New Jersey Department of Community Affairsnonbinding calculation of the townships affordable-housing obligation and adopt a lower set of present- and prospective-need totals submitted by the township.

The resolution, introduced as Item 8 on the agenda, passed on a roll-call vote after an extended presentation by Mayor Mary Roderick and discussion among council members about the formula the state used to compute the obligation.

Why it matters: The DCAcalculation initially reported several hundred units the state said the township should plan for; the mayor and township consultants said that figure included replacement units from Hurricane Sandy and other classifications the township believes were counted incorrectly. Reducing the towns assigned obligation could limit future local land-use requirements, zoning overlays and obligations tied to state enforcement actions.

Mayor Mary Roderick told the council the town hired outside professionals who reexamined the DCA figures and removed lands they considered improperly classified. Roderick said a state consultantaccording to her accounttold her that, "if if we had no land in town, you would still be required to build 450 units under this formula." She added, "How could we possibly be required to build that if we had no land?" The mayor said her team recalculated the townships numbers and reduced the present-and-prospective need to 114 units.

Roderick also said recent case law could further limit obligations for some municipalities and that the townships counsel and planner were working to press those legal arguments. She told the council: "We have the very best legal counsel, the best planners, and, working on this. But it looks like we may not have to do any affordable housing."

Council members voiced differing emphases during debate. Councilman Quinlisk said he accepted that some units may be needed but warned the states demands were onerous: "I accept that we're gonna have some of these units, but the requirements that they're asking of us are a lot. Our young residents and our seniors will benefit, single mothers, especially will benefit from, affordable housing." Several council members praised the administrations work to get the numbers reduced while reaffirming a commitment to house residents in need.

Votes at a glance - Item 6 (first reading): Ordinance changing speed zones on Garfield Avenue (first reading introduced) - Item 7 (first reading): Ordinance raising the minimum area threshold for engineering, grading, drainage and survey requirements for small accessory buildings (first reading introduced) - Item 8 (final action): Resolution rejecting the DCAcalculation and adopting the townships recalculated present and prospective need (passed on roll call) - Consent agenda: Approved (included multiple routine resolutions; F, L and N were held for separate roll call and discussion) - Resolution F (consent): Award contract to AA Academy for animal-control-related services (approved; recorded dissent(s) on roll call) - Item L: Reappointment of municipal prosecutor (approved) - Item N: Appointment to Municipal Utilities Authority (approved)

What the council did: The council adopted the townships revised need figures in a formal resolution rejecting the DCAcalculation. The resolution text and the consultant analysis were discussed publicly during the meeting; the mayor said additional legal work on recent case law could further reduce the towns obligation.

What remains unresolved: The mayor and council said additional legal review and possible challenge at the state level could change final requirements. They did not announce required next steps for zoning changes or a timetable for any future ordinance work tied to the new numbers.

Provenance: The discussion introducing Item 8 begins in the transcript when the agenda item is read into the record; the mayors presentation and subsequent council debate begin with the mayors remarks about the DCA calculation and the planners work (transcript block beginning at 1063.9451). The council vote concluding the item is documented later in the transcript (transcript block concluding near 1373.645).